If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?
Printable View
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?
Looks like you are assuming too much.
God doesn't wipe out non-believers for one beautiful and powerful reason: Free Will... It's our choice to stay on God's Righteous Path or to step aside.
So, my humble answer to your question would be: Yes, God IS Omnibenevolent. BUT, He will not bother with those who doesn't want His Benevolence
Bye
If he is real, I want his benevolence. The problem is that his existence seems in all honesty like a contradictory concept to me. I understandably do not think he exists. An infinitely intelligent being would understand where I am coming from. If he is omnibenevolent, he will not let me be tortured forever for missing the fact that he exists. I wouln't allow anybody to burn forever, not even Hitler or Hussein, not even for the outrageously horrible things they did, much less for an honest miscalculation in logic. I say that, and I am not omnibenevolent. I am not even totally good. Therefore, by the transitive property of inequality, an omnibenevolent being would not allow me to be tortured forever for not believing he exists. Would you allow somebody to be tortured FOREVER for not believing you exist when they have never met you or seen verifiable pictures of you? If you say you would not, then how can you logically say an omnibenevolent being would? An omnibenevolent being would not allow somebody to be tortured forever even if they begged for it. Would God give somebody crack if he begged for it , or would he say, "You are confused. You need to stay away from that stuff."? People go to prison all day every day for not having that stance on crack, and eternal torture is infinitely worse than crack. An omnibenevolent being would say, "I am not going to let you be tortured forever. It would be infinitely horrible, and as soon as the torture started you would know that you don't want to be in that position." No omnibenevolent being would even allow Hell to exist. If there is a problem with the absence of Hell, which there would not be, an infinitely powerful being would cause those problems to vanish. If there is a problem with making those problems vanish, then he would make such problems vanish, etc. Hell is not necessary.Quote:
Originally posted by Malkav
God doesn't wipe out non-believers for one beautiful and powerful reason: Free Will... It's our choice to stay on God's Righteous Path or to step aside. *
So, my humble answer to your question would be: Yes, God IS Omnibenevolent. BUT, He will not bother with those who doesn't want His Benevolence
Bye
Also, you didn't answer his question. Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent being just have death for people who "don't want" his benevolence? If my next door neighbor doesn't want my benevolence, does that justify raping her? I don't think so. Even if she tells me that if a rapist ever breaks in not to call the cops, I can assure you, I will call the cops and then run into her apartment with a gun. If just sit there and say, "Well, she doesn't want my help," then I wouldn't be omnibenevolent. I wouldn't even be benevolent.
Rembember, we are talking about eternal torture. All talk about "if you want to" is out the window. Nobody would actually want that if they were experiencing it. Nobody! Do you think crack should be legal? Well, some people actually enjoy crack and never have a problem with it. Hell wouldn't have such qualities. But it should be peoples' choice? And it's not even a choice when you are talking about atheists.
I'm omniambivalent - does that count?
You say that too much. How about trying to clear up the illogic we see?Quote:
Originally posted by MarthaM
Looks like you are assuming too much.
There are individuals on this planet that appear to have an infinte capacity for evil. I for one would allow Hitler or Hussein to \"burn forever.\" But then I'm not omnibenevolent.Quote:
If he is omnibenevolent, he will not let me be tortured forever for missing the fact that he exists. I wouln't allow anybody to burn forever, not even Hitler or Hussein, not even for the outrageously horrible things they did, much less for an honest miscalculation in logic.[/b]
By the way, \"honest miscalculation in logic.\" Please elaborate.
I for one need the chapter and verse reference on that one.Quote:
Therefore, by the transitive property of inequality, an omnibenevolent being would not allow me to be tortured forever for not believing he exists.[/b]
God does not 'make' a Hell. God simply puts a boundary around Heaven.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?
You see, Hell would be a fine place, except for the people who go there. You see, Hell is a place where only very selfish and ambitious souls go. Think about it for a second. In Hell we have an entrenched power structure of individuals who would certainly feel as though their power and positions would be under threat by any new comers. Just think, what would you do if Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, or Attilla the Hun suddenly walk into your little Community. Would you extend them every freedom to do anything they would like? Or would you come down like a ton of bricks in order to protect your own position in the relative Hierarchy? Hell is the way Hell is because of the Souls in Hell. They punish themselves.
also, we need to consider that these people choose Hell. They wanted Selfishness and Personal Ambition for themselves. Nobody held a gun to their heads and made them Register to Vote Republican. They chose to be Enemies of Humanity of their own free will. So, when they die, they are allowed to continue to pursue their own Individual Ambitions, in a Hell where they are entirely free to make it as pleasant as they would like, considering how everybody is only out for his or her self. When a Community has absolutely nobody who is Community Minded, then Communities are not very pleasant affairs. Situations like as what Thomas Hobbes described where life is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short', except nothing is very short about Eternity.
But the Meak and the Humble and those who had always placed Community before Self, and a Love of God and Spirit above the animal impulses, these people, by their Choice, will be admitted into Heaven.
We all have a choice. We go where we have always wanted to go.
Have you read "Paradise Lost"? Milton's Lucifer would rather Rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. Certainly there are many souls who would forego the Ranks and the Hierarchies of Heaven -- the One for All spirit -- and would really prefer the open contest for Power which Hell provides. Lucifer may keep one bound to a rock and scourged with fire, so as to impress you with who really is in charge, but in the Span of All Eternity there is always the chance that one can still pull off that Rugged Individual Thing of working one's way up from the Bottom, to perhaps someday rival the Very Devil Himself. What True Blooded Republican would want anything Less. I'm sure they would not find Heaven quite Manly enough for themselves. Whatever the Meak will inheret, they would want no part of.
I hate to make a long post right after Don Vol-Vol's, but here's something I wrote a while back that touches on this subject -- I think I may have even posted this here before! :shock:
Anyway...
[A]ccording to The Philosopher’s Magazine (TPM) Online’s Do-It-Yourself-Deity program, if you check only the boxes labeled “Omniscient”, “The Creator”, and “Perfectly Free”, the resulting plausibility quotient is a rather “perfect” 1.0, meaning that said God “is internally consistent and could exist in our universe”. (If you check also, “Omnipotent”, “The Sustainer”, “Eternally Existing”, or “A Personal God”, the plausibility quotient drops to 0.9)
The text goes on to say that “...but they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?”
This is where the conflict between belief in God and disbelief really lies. There is this notion that God is “all or nothing”, and that part of that includes personification. Recall, however, that the scientific origins of life, i.e. the amoeba, and other such organisms, do not have much of a persona either, however, they are, according to science, where life as it is now all originated from.
Is it so terribly hard to believe that the same concept could be true, only in a more spiritual form? That God is the ultimate amoeba? From which our ancestors all spawned, and eventually evolved into us as we are now?
There is one other thing: if you check “Omnibenevolent” as the fourth box, the plausibility quotient stays at 1.0. Now, given that God, as an amorphous mass of energy, has roughly the capacity of a modern Central Processing Unit (CPU), it doesn’t make sense that such an entity would be capable of any emotion, let alone love. However, as is widely speculated in the science-fiction genre, there arises a so-called “ghost in the machine”, so to speak, meaning that robots and other advanced machines do somehow acquire the capability for what we would recognize as human emotion: sentience, even sapience.
If we have already established that God is omniscient, then we acknowledge that it is actually sapient. Therefore, we can infer that God can discern feelings, emotions. That it can and has an amiable and protective feeling toward the universe, its asexually conceived child.
…
Note TPM’s use of pronoun in relation to God; it calls God a “she”, and only a “she”. Building on the notion that the universe is like a child, should we not then automatically graft typical feminine attributes, even somewhat, to this entity? Perhaps in lieu of analogizing the universe’s creation as a bud emerging from an asexual being, instead we should envision it as parthenogenesis, as a child indeed born from a being with feminine attributes.
Martha,
I believe the " honest miscalculation in logic " he's referencing is the one us atheists
will be guilty of making if proof of God is ever substantiated . I also believe an omnibenevolent creator would not sentence us to burn forever because of it.
Also, demons like Hitler and the rest deserve to lose their lives, without question;
yet torturing them for an eternity would place us perilously close to their mind set.
That's how I see it. I don't think any humans are infinitely evil. Hitler and so forth deserve terrible things, even long periods of torture, but FOREVER? That's insane. If I think that's insane, then an omnibenevolent being would of course think it's insane, especially over a miscalculation in logic.Quote:
Originally posted by R.Carter
Martha,
I believe the \" honest miscalculation in logic \" he's referencing is the one us atheists
will be guilty of making if proof of God is ever substantiated . I also believe an omnibenevolent creator would not sentence us to burn forever because of it.
Also, demons like Hitler and the rest deserve to lose their lives, without question;
yet torturing them for an eternity would place us perilously close to their mind set.
Martha, the transitive property of inequality says that if A > B and B > C, then A > C. I used that property to back up my point that if God is more benevolent than I am, and I am more benevolent than someone who would allow somebody to be tortured forever (for anything) for not believing I exist (when my existence is verifiable), then God is more benevolent than someone who would allow someone else to be tortured forever for not believing he exists. To put it in shorter form, in terms of benevolence... If God > Me and Me > Eternal Torture Allower, then God > Eternal Torture Allower. So God is more benevolent than what would qualify as an Eternal Torture Allower, so he is not an Eternal Torture Allower. Since I am in the inequality, then I can truthfully make the point that God would not be an eternal torture allower even for Hitler, Stalin, Khan, Hussein, Bin Laden, Zarqawi, Dhamer, Bundy, Jack the Ripper, or anybody else. So I am nowhere near agreeing with the idea that an omnibenevolent being would say, "Woops, that was the wrong religious conclusion. You will now be taken to the eternal torture room, and I will not save you, even though I could save without there being a problem with it."
Actually "omnibenevolent" does not mean that God is always good and smiling in every occasion. This would a simplistic reading of sacred texts. Omnibenevolent is a neologism born just to complete omnipresence and omnipotence. It is used to argue about God, but it is not religious jargon.
The “omnibenevolence” of God can be better described as a posture of eternal justice and equanimity in each circumstance. But again, it’s more a concept born from speculation than from the sacred texts.
Universal Mind
God as described in Christianity does not punish someone because he does not believe in him. For instance, Dante Alighieri in his “Divina Commedia” - where he describes the souls in Hell, Purgatory and Paradise – do not put those who didn’t have the occasion to know Jesus in Hell.
Non-believers can go to Paradise just like believers.
eXistenZ
Not according to most Protestants.Quote:
Originally posted by eXistenZ
God as described in Christianity does not punish someone because he does not believe in him.
I'm sure Awaken would disagree with that.Quote:
Non-believers can go to Paradise just like believers. [/b]
This assumption is based upon hearsay, and not on fact It is a common misconception that man has ‘free will’ when the word does not substantiate that as fact, but only an assumption. God wills what He will upon whom He will.Quote:
Originally posted by Malkav
God doesn't wipe out non-believers for one beautiful and powerful reason: Free Will... It's our choice to stay on God's Righteous Path or to step aside.
So, my humble answer to your question would be: Yes, God IS Omnibenevolent. BUT, He will not bother with those who doesn't want His Benevolence
Bye
Rom 9:17 for the Writing saith to Pharaoh--`For this very thing I did raise thee up, that I might shew in thee My power, and that My name might be declared in all the land;'
Rom 9:18 so, then, to whom He willeth, He doth kindness, and to whom He willeth, He doth harden.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say, then, to me, `Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?'
Rom 9:20 nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it , Why me didst thou make thus?
Rom 9:21 hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?
The Rev.
Well, people who are ok with themselves shouldn't worry about God being omnibenevolent. In a scary way, a lot of religious people are ok with a God who is not always benevolent. But, a lot of people ask for a pushover when they ask for an omnibenevolent God; of course not to say that either answer is correct.
In the moment.
Why are you asking questions about god all the time. And why do you always speak as if its a male entity.
When will you get this idea about a male entity as god, with a white beard up on cloud 9, with infinite power of omnibenevolence or whatever, out of your head?
why does god have to be a certain being that is a male all the time to you? Maybe when you bring him down to your house and meet this actual being that you are calling god and asking all these question about, then we can all ask him ourself ey?
But don't be suprised if I don't hail him as god only. I will only consider such a being as part of god. Wether or not he be in touch with its will. or speaks any sense, or has any power. That god which is apart of this entity is a part of myself. And understanding of adversay is that which is not part of yourself but "outside", and god inside.
Meanwhile when you don't have a subject, it's poitnless asking questions about that non existent entity or subject which you are labelling 'god'.
If you are talking about a religious god of your perception from some religious material.
You should atleast speak in a logical context out of that religious perception and discuss god in the proper context. (eg, not just a male entity)
First what are you talking about when you say 'non-believers', non believers of what? of your concept of god? Do you mean non believers of the truth? Or non believers of your concept of god?Quote:
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?[/b]
Who would wipe these non believers from existence? This is your concept of god is it?
a entity who can do this.....who tortures souls for enternity? Sounds like you are borrowing religious material into the context of your beliefs, or your discussion or something.
I cannot begin to discuss this without pointing out the illogic here, in the way in which you have asked the question implies you believe god is a certain person or entity who creates a place called hell and eliminates people who do not believe in him....by perhaps sending them to this place which they then burn in some fire for eternity.
It's a bizzare thing to talk in this context throughout the dicsussion, as if you are speaking as if it were true....and then ask, why does he do this or this? Why does who do what? You are creating not only a entity from inside your head. But an entity with qualities and powers of your own imagination as well. From religious preconcieved notions most likely.
^ Nirvana, quit being a jackass.
Well he is referenced quite a bit as \"Father,\" in the Bible.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
Why are you asking questions about god all the time. And why do you always speak as if its a male entity.
I was going to say a fucktard, but close enough.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
^ Nirvana, quit being a jackass.
Hmm.. the whole heaven and hell thing always has struck a nerve with me.
It's the escapists dream, no? We can avoid reality for as long as we live because we assure ourselves the afterlife will be wonderful.
Heaven is supposed to be "eternal bliss". Well personally, I'd rather live a life with mixed emotions. I will live my life happily and well, ignoring what people tell me is "sinful". I will love and respect myself, as oneself is one's greatest virtue.
I will be human, relying on instinct and reason... Not some fabrication I'm told to believe.
Instead of this monotonic blissful eternity why not just enjoy the beautiful things in life and do away with the horrible?
I think that one of the most misconstrued assumptions about hell is that it is for punishment. ‘It is not, it is a place, or should I say state of correction…’
So one you're 'corrected' you join God and all of his fancy friends in heaven?Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
I think that one of the most misconstrued assumptions about hell is that it is for punishment. ‘It is not, it is a place, or should I say state of correction…’
Death, Hell, and the grave give up their dead...because their use is complete...no longer needed. So, Hell can't be eternal, can it?Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
So one you're 'corrected' you join God and all of his fancy friends in heaven?
I don't know, I was asking you.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Death, Hell, and the grave give up their dead...because their use is complete...no longer needed. So, Hell can't be eternal, can it?
Here's a question for you. If I continue living my life the way I do (ie. strong atheist, anti-religious, blasphemous), do you think I will go to hell? Don't give me bible passages, do you, personally, think I will go to hell.
You're already in torment i.e. Hell, and that is why you are atheist, blasphemous, but that doesn't mean you can't get out...Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
I don't know, I was asking you.
Here's a question for you. If I continue living my life the way I do (ie. strong atheist, anti-religious, blasphemous), do you think I will go to hell? Don't give me bible passages, do you, personally, think I will go to hell.
If you ever ask that questian to a so called "True Christian" or one who utterly and completely takes the bible to be truth , im sure they will tell you that you will go to hell .
About hell being eternal , i personally find it completely stupid that if you dont meet the certain criteria you go to hell . Basically if you want to go to heaven as a christain , you have to throw away the majority of your free will , thats how i see it . So the whole thing that makes us what we are , the ability of choose condemns us to hell if we exercise our choice on certain things . I can understand that if there was a God and heaven , and if you were a killer or something , a very bad person , then you shouldnt go to heaven . But if i dont believe in God , i have simply used the brain that this God gave me , but god would have me not use this gift of a thing called thought and choice and prefer me to deny certain facts we know about our species and history in general . That is the underlying thing i dont like about the whole heaven /hell condemning thing . It just doesn't make sense from a creators point of view .
Yeah, not that long ago they'd help you with that via an ice-pick into the frontal lobe.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
You're already in torment i.e. Hell, and that is why you are atheist, blasphemous, but that doesn't mean you can't get out...
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than have to have a frontal lobotomy" ( - Ed's Redeeming Qualities, [I think...])
Doesn't most every religion say basically this same thing? Believe or you will burn. Seems just like some lame scare tactics to get some more converts, if you ask me.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(InTheMoment)</div>Oh, frick. Prof. Sesame seed has made a post almost exactly like that in every thread on this section of the forum.Quote:
I was going to say a fucktard, but close enough.[/b]
Here's a list of things I know I can scroll past safely without missing anything:
- Bible quotes
- Any post by Nirvana Starpeel
<!--QuoteBegin-Darkmatic
Basically if you want to go to heaven as a christain , you have to throw away the majority of your free will , thats how i see it .
Also, pronouns are not capitalized.
Really, exercise some Intelligence here. God does not have to CREATE a hell. What God does is exclude some Evil Souls from Heaven. What they do after they are excluded from Heaven is their own business. and that Business is Hell.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?
God has nothing to do with it.
What I suppose is happening is that the Republican in Hell do all they can in order to maintain the present status quo of Power. They newcomers in hell are put in the lowest jobs where they don't even get a minimum wage, because that only limits employment opportunities they say, and they are lorded over very seriously in order to assure that they do not threaten the positions of those already in power.
Things are very likely to get very ugly when you are dealing with Souls who have absolutely no love or caring in their souls. What would you expect of a place where the only qualification for membership is to be Evil and Predatory. You can't hold God responsible for that. You should only congratulate God for the Wisdom of keeping such despicable trash out of Heaven.
Let them sublet with you and then see how you like it. Let you live a month or two with Attilla, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper and then see how effusive you are about how mean a guy God is.
Really, exercise some Intelligence here. God does not have to CREATE a hell. What God does is exclude some Evil Souls from Heaven. What they do after they are excluded from Heaven is their own business. and that Business is Hell.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
If so, why does God have to make a Hell? I mean, couldn't he just wipe the non-believers from existence, rather than torture there souls for eternity?
God has nothing to do with it.
What I suppose is happening is that the Republican in Hell do all they can in order to maintain the present status quo of Power. They newcomers in hell are put in the lowest jobs where they don't even get a minimum wage, because that only limits employment opportunities they say, and they are lorded over very seriously in order to assure that they do not threaten the positions of those already in power.
Things are very likely to get very ugly when you are dealing with Souls who have absolutely no love or caring in their souls. What would you expect of a place where the only qualification for membership is to be Evil and Predatory. You can't hold God responsible for that. You should only congratulate God for the Wisdom of keeping such despicable trash out of Heaven.
Let them sublet with you and then see how you like it. Let you live a month or two with Attilla, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper and then see how effusive you are about how mean a guy God is.
The Definition of Hell is – ‘The absences of the ability to sense God’s presence in the spirit realm.’ To be cut off from the presence of God.
This is not to say that He is not there, but only that the individual can not sense Him.
The way I always see it, if you hold true to the Christian beliefs (or any other religion, for that matter) God will look favourably on you
You don't have to believe, belief means squat
Just lead a decent life
"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path" - Morpheus
Just think about that
There are various texts that suggest hell is a lot worse than that.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The Definition of Hell is – ‘The absences of the ability to sense God’s presence in the spirit realm.’ To be cut off from the presence of God.
The book of Isaiah (Chap. 66) mentions, "The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people." Similiar comparisons are also brought up in the book of Matthew (see Matthew 18:8-9 & Matthew 13:42, 50)
II Peter, Chap. 3, verse 7 says, "God has ... commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish."
Not too mention, the book of Revelations describes a lake of fire and brimstone that will consume the unbelieving. (Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.)
So are these portions of the Bible supposed to be dismissed? Maybe we should apply some of that symbolic interpretation, that you like to wield.
In the moment. The fire is not meant to be litrally burning, or the worms litrally eating the entity. They are not seen as physically discusting. It is all symbolic in it's meaning to convey the pain and description of this entity who disconnects from the source/soul.
You do not interpret your dreams litrally. Neither should you interpret these writings litrally.
meaning is conveyed through symbolism of image.
For example. "the light at the end of the tunnel" phrase I am sure you have herd before.
When someone mentions this they are obviously not talking about a physical tunnel and light that they are walking towards in their life, which can be found perhaps in some room of their house.There is no physical light or tunnel. They are using it as a example to explain something to you about the situation in their life. Same as this writing is using the fire to symbolize the suffering.
If god did exist, then there could not be a hell and god still be omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being is one whose actions are harmful to none and beneficial to all. Sending someone to hell would be harmful to them, and therefore, a god who sends people to hell cannot be omnibenevolent.
But there is no reason to believe god exists, so it's not really an issue.
These are not Hell, these are 'Sheol', and 'The Second Death',Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
There are various texts that suggest hell is a lot worse than that. *
The book of Isaiah (Chap. 66) mentions, \"The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people.\" Similiar comparisons are also brought up in the book of Matthew (see Matthew 18:8-9 & Matthew 13:42, 50)
II Peter, Chap. 3, verse 7 says, \"God has ... commanded that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire on the day of judgment, when ungodly people will perish.\"
Not too mention, the book of Revelations describes a lake of fire and brimstone that will consume the unbelieving. (Rev. 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.)
So are these portions of the Bible supposed to be dismissed? Maybe we should apply some of that symbolic interpretation, that you like to wield.
Hell is casted into the Lake of Fire...The Second Death... 'Our God is a consuming 'Fire'!
Quote:
Originally posted by the most rambling worthless excuse for a piece of fiction
\"The worms that eat them will never die, and the fire that burns them will never be put out. The sight of them will be disgusting to all people.\" *
Good to know. :roll:Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
These are not Hell, [...]
See, this is exactly why religion is so difficult to take seriously. Everyone interprets what they read in a way that makes sense to them. Some people study both the natural history and the translations of the Bible and others just take the information that they've heard from a second hand source.
The Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, yet I'm always amazed at how some people can still defend it by using, a constant switch from literal to metaphoric interpretations.
[quote]So which is it? If you guys want to get together to collaborate, that's fine. :roll:Quote:
Hell is casted into the Lake of Fire...The Second Death... 'Our God is a consuming 'Fire'!
In the moment you just have to realize your interpretation of it perhaps needs a bit of work, and that many people do interpret it yeah ofcourse as do you, And many people make mistakes. There is only one true interpretation, just because it is not said to be litral does not mean people are being relative about the way they interpret. If you think the sentences above are meant to be in a litral context, you are indeed far away from understanding.
You need to take a decent look at it, not just say you are. First thing is to make an effort to understand peoples interpretations. And the real interpretation itself, Then if you feel the need once you understand them, discuss the meaning of it. Atleast this way the conversation has a chance of being on the right track. If you just assume what other people think all the time without actually talking to them about it, or even considering your own interpretation as perhaps not perfect, (thus the reason you think it does not make sense to you.) Then it is useless to keep going on about it.
You have a problem with the bible. ok you have made that clear. But the reason you have a problem with it in my opinion is because you just don't understand what it means. And you pick out all the mistranslations and misconcpetions, having no hope of finding your way through it without a highly distorted view.
I must politely disagree Tony, without faith it is impossible to please God…Quote:
Originally posted by Ynot
The way I always see it, if you hold true to the Christian beliefs (or any other religion, for that matter) God will look favourably on you
You don't have to believe, belief means squat
Just lead a decent life
\"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path\" - Morpheus
Just think about that
The so-called flaws are for those of faith who can discern between truth,and error of man, it is the Spirit which will lead you into all 'truth' without it you can not make sense of the bible.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
The Bible is full of flaws and contradictions, yet I'm always amazed at how some people can still defend it by using, a constant switch from literal to metaphoric interpretations.
Sigh. Once again we're back on the "you just have to have faith" train. I'm getting off.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The so-called flaws are for those of faith who can discern between truth,and error of man, it is the Spirit which will lead you into all 'truth' without it you can not make sense of the bible.
Here in the rational world we call that 'arguing in circles' and it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. In fact, it sort of makes you look like a doushebag, if you really want my opinion.
Facts are facts, you can't work around them you must work with them any good scientist would tell you that.Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
Sigh. Once again we're back on the \"you just have to have faith\" train. I'm getting off.
Here's in the rational world we call that 'arguing in circles' and it has absolutely no merit whatsoever. In fact, it sort of makes you look like a doushebag, if you really want my opinion.
I'd be interested to know what facts you're referring to?Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Facts are facts, you can't work around them you must work with them any good scientist would tell you that.
The problem with taking parts of the bible literally and at the same time interpreting other parts is that: there is no viable mechanism for determining which parts are literal and which allegorical. You can really see that something is wrong when different denominations interpret a passage completely differently, while others are taking it entirely literally. There is no mechanism used to determine which passages are meant to be allegorical save for the useless "it would go against my faith literally, so it must be allegorical". For example if we're interpreting things without cause this would be completely viable:Quote:
Originally posted by nirvana
In the moment you just have to realize your interpretation of it perhaps needs a bit of work, and that many people do interpret it yeah ofcourse as do you, And many people make mistakes. There is only one true interpretation, just because it is not said to be litral does not mean people are being relative about the way they interpret. If you think the sentences above are meant to be in a litral context, you are indeed far away from understanding.
Jesus was crucified as the synoptic gospels tell us. Yet he was only up there for 6 hours (again, as the gospels say) - this was a very short time to be nailed up on a cross. This obviously is meant to be interpreted that jesus was let down after six hours because they felt sorry for him. All other interpretations (including the rest of the gospels, an apparent contradiction) are either based on a faulty interpretation of the above fact or are a later interpolation into the text. Jesus did not die for anyone's sins.
If you say that there is "one true interpretation", then you would have to provide a mechanism for determining which passages are allegorical or literal. Why, for example, should we take the views of hell as allegorical - but the crucifiction as literal? Whats to stop me from interpreting it all as a fairy tale? Or a group of roman plays that were mistaken as truth and promoted as religion? Lacking a mechanism, interpreting any passage (or the whole book) is just as viable as your selected passages.
In addition to that, you would have to establish why your particular interpretation is the true one - why not any other?
-spoon
[edited to add] Awaken: I'd be interested in hearing about "facts" in the bible too.
Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it?
If you don't know how to do this. Start learning.
Not exactly what he meant.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it?
If you don't know how to do this. Start learning.
I understand what he was talking about. That's why I made that reply.
It's obvious the mechanism for understanding anything, not just the bible,
is the use of your intelligence.
The main part of my post was concerned with the fact that, lacking any viable mechanism, you cannot say which passages are literal and which are allegorical. Even if "common sense" was a good way to interpret passages, you still have not provided this mechanism. Remember without such a mechanism it is just as true for me to say jesus never died on the cross, after all my common sense tells me this was clearly meant to be taken as allegory. So again - how do you determine that certain passages are allegorical, while most are literal?Quote:
Use your common sense and intelligence. How else do you think you interpret it? [/b]
You cannot say that you interpret passages with common sense and intelligence, as you said that there was "only one true interpretation". Obviously there has to be something other than than simple common sense, as people have been using this dubious "method" of biblical interpretation for centuries and guess what - there's thousands of interpretations of key passages in the bible. So what do you use to interpret the "one true interpretation"?
So my two questions were:
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be "it aligns with my belief".
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
You can say it's \"my common sense'\". but that doesn't always mean it is common sense.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
Remember without such a mechanism it is just as true for me to say jesus never died on the cross, after all my common sense tells me this was clearly meant to be taken as allegory.
Intelligence.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be \"it aligns with my belief\".
Intelligence.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
If you say this is an unprecise answer. Think about why, when you ask an unprecise question, you cannot expect anything other than a unprecise answer.
Nirvana, you have stated that there is "only one true interpretation" of the bible. I have two problems with this: you have never provided a viable mechanism for determining the allegorical nature of passages; and you have never shown how a particular interpretation of said passages can be shown to be true. You're answer of "Intelligence" fails on both counts.
Intelligence cannot be a mechanism for determining the literal/allegorical nature of a passage, in part because intelligence is not a mechanism, but mostly because people of intelligence come up with different answers. If all you needed was intelligence, then everyone would agree on which parts of the bible are to be interpreted allegorically. For example I'd say I'm at least slightly intelligent - using this mechanism(which it isn't, that was sarcasm) I know that the crucifiction of jesus and his subsequent resurrection is meant to be taken allegorically - it did not actually happen. Why should my interpretation be false, as it is just as valid as interpreting that particular passage literally. Using intelligence as a mechanism completely fails, as it has exactly the same problems as no mechanism at all - namely that people, using intelligence, will come up with wildly varying answers.
The same problems arise when using intelligence to determine the true interpretation of a particular passage. You may as well pick the interpretation out of a hat.
[Edited for your edit]Why is it not common sense? It seems just as sensible as your answer. But it doesn't align with your beliefs, so it cannot be allegory. This illustrates my point well - this is the mechanism that you're using to determine a passage's interpretation, and it is not a viable mechanism - you just see what you want to.Quote:
You can say it's \"my common sense'\". but that doesn't always mean it is common sense. [/b]
Would you like to try another answer?
-spoon
Not for the moment. You must first understand what is meant by the term Intelligence.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>That is incorrect. Using your intelligence is a mechanism.Quote:
intelligence is not a mechanism[/b]
This is a completely ridiculous statement. If your not using your intelligence, what are you using?Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>That's because they use different levels and degrees of intelligence.Quote:
mostly because people of intelligence come up with different answers.[/b]
If everyone all had the needed amount of intelligence. Everyone would agree, because everyone would understand.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
If all you needed was intelligence, then everyone would agree on which parts of the bible are to be interpreted allegorically.
You need to ask more precise questions. The only thing I can say here is, you lack understanding about the issue.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
I know that the crucifiction of jesus and his subsequent resurrection is meant to be taken allegorically - it did not actually happen. Why should my interpretation be false, as it is just as valid as interpreting that particular passage literally.
<!--QuoteBegin-spoon@
Using intelligence as a mechanism completely fails
Next you'll be claiming ignorance and illogic is an effective method.....after all in the absence of intelligence, there isn't much else to use.
Intelligence is not a relative term, ignorance cannot turn into intelligence. Vice versa. Regardless of ones perception about what is intelligent or ignorant. The truth about it will remain.
<!--QuoteBegin-spoon
Would you like to try another answer?
After this, the discussion can then progress forwards without being repeditive.
Nirvana...have you ever considered sterilizing yourself?
Not a problem. Even if someone would breed with him, he couldn't figure out what-went-where anyway.
Ever notice that when ever there is substantial reply to a question, and then there is not a substantive reply in return because of the lack of wit, or understanding from the original questioner. The argumentum always returns with a personal attack instead of a substantive reply.
The Rev.
I would just like to add a little thought here.....
To be honest I know humanity is not spirituality intelligent. Of all the years of scientific and material progress witnessed. Humanity remains totally spiritually absent minded. With an overall unbalanced lifestyle.
Now on top of this, Suprisingly. I have found here at DV, for some reason. Some of the most below average, in spiritual intelligence.
I don't say this to be mean, but a honest observation. I'm thinking this has something to do with some kind of gathered group collective vibration, attracting the people, rather than the subject lucid dreaming itself.
Hopefully if I can lift the vibration a bit, and perhaps some help from others, we can get some more spiritually advanced people in here. What is interesting is I can feel those threatened by the rise fight to lower it and keep it as it is. As they band together to fight it anyway they can. Fortunately however once a higher vibration is present and growing the attracting force is then slowly but surely unstopable.
Amen to that Nirvana!
Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being (though a little narrowminded, but who am I to make that call?). Vocabulary is generally a decent gauge of intelligence however, so I assume you are at least of moderately capable intelligence.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Ever notice that when ever there is substantial reply to a question, and then there is not a substantive reply in return because of the lack of wit, or understanding from the original questioner. The argumentum always returns with a personal attack instead of a substantive reply.
The Rev.
And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.
Good reply
Check this out:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23684
Oh yes, please do check it out. It's terribly telling.
A mechanism it may be but a completely useless one for the purpose we're talking about here - for reasons I've already stated, but looks like I'll be re-iterating. You've even pointed out the failings of \"using your intelligence\" as a way of determining which portions of the bible are allegorical:Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
That is incorrect. Using your intelligence is a mechanism.
As you've highlighted quite well here: \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism for determining if a portion of the bible is literal or not. People come up with different answers. You've attributed this to differing levels of intelligence, I don't agree with that but that's besides the point. For whatever the reason, using intelligence fails as a mechanism in this particular instance - people simply come up with different ideas.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
That's because they use different levels and degrees of intelligence.
If everyone all had the needed amount of intelligence. Everyone would agree, because everyone would understand.
You've got the wrong idea of a mechanism here nirvana. A simple one would be this: When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? :)) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\" (without insulting it) and it makes sense. This is a far better mechanism than \"using your intelligence\" as you have not yet shown how that is any better than arbitrarily selecting passages.
A mechanism to determine which passages are allegorical/literal would be something like the above - something that anyone can apply and see \"oh yeah, this is literal, this isn't, etc\". \"Using your intelligence\" is not a mechanism, because it is just the same as you selecting passages to interpret allegorically based on beliefs - If passage A conflicts with my belief, then it obviously mustn't be a literal passage.
No, I am merely demonstrating the complete failure of \"using your intelligence\" as a mechanism in the sense. I used my intelligence, how can you explain away this interpretation (without resorting to a \"special case\") while maintaining that \"using your intelligence\" is a viable mechanism? You can't.Quote:
spoon:
I know that the crucifiction of jesus and his subsequent resurrection is meant to be taken allegorically - it did not actually happen. Why should my interpretation be false, as it is just as valid as interpreting that particular passage literally.
Nirvana:
You need to ask more precise questions. The only thing I can say here is, you lack understanding about the issue. [/b]
I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time. So again, either show me how "using you intelligence" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:Quote:
Spoon:
Using intelligence as a mechanism completely fails
Nirvana:
This is a completely ridiculous statement. If your not using your intelligence, what are you using? [/b]
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be "it aligns with my belief".
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
-spoon
If I may interject here for a moment, 'spoon'Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time. So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be \"it aligns with my belief\".
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
-spoon
I would like to say that without the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to discern which is scriptures are spiritually interpreted.
The Rev.
Of course, that explains each seperate christian denomination's uncanny ability to agree completely with every other on issues of interpretation. :roll:
Not as much as you would think...Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
Of course, that explains each seperate christian denomination's uncanny ability to agree completely with every other on issues of interpretation. :roll:
Exactly.
Or to translate: They're not all hitting the same crack pipe.
Again Superfluous Commenting, nothing of meaning...Quote:
Originally posted by kimpossible
Exactly.
Or to translate: They're not all hitting the same crack pipe.
You know, (k)impossible it is going to be a very sad awakening when you stand before God, and He asks you why you scoffed His messengers, and His Word? And that you will bow before Him and confess that ‘Jesus is Lord’, and that why do you waste so much of your life hating those who are trying to help?
The Rev.
Spoon you have not understood my post.
Intelligence is not useless.Quote:
A mechanism it may be but a completely useless one
You have not stated any reason why using your intelligence is useless.Quote:
for the purpose we're talking about here - for reasons I've already stated
Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.Quote:
but looks like I'll be re-iterating. You've even pointed out the failings of \"using your intelligence\" as a way of determining which portions of the bible are allegorical:
How have I pointed that out? I have never pointed out any such thing as this. I have only stated that using intelligence is the method used to interpret. A vague method I admit. But it goes with your vague question.Quote:
As you've highlighted quite well here: \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism for determining if a portion of the bible is literal or not.
Using the observation that people come up with different ideas, then using this to prove intelligence fails, is completely illogical. Why don't you agree that it is because of different levels of intelligence? how is it not so? You say you disagree, then state no reason why. How can you consider this a useful response?Quote:
People come up with different answers. You've attributed this to differing levels of intelligence, I don't agree with that but that's besides the point. For whatever the reason, using intelligence fails as a mechanism in this particular instance - people simply come up with different ideas.
Just because jesus spoke in parables, does not mean that nothing else in the book is in symbolic form. Please explain what you are talking about here if I have misunderstood.Quote:
You've got the wrong idea of a mechanism here nirvana. A simple one would be this: When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? ) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\"
I don't see how it is logical to assume this, let alone using intelligence.
what mechanism is far better? You have failed to explain a mechanism at all, or any logic here. Arbitrarily selecting passages is not more useful or equal to using intelligence, because it is random and mindless and not based on any knowledge of truth but on blindly picking out whatever. Intelligence is knowing where the target is and being able to hit it. Being random is shooting at a target blindfolded without knowing where the target is around you. Hopefully you are able to use your intelligence here to understand that this example is not meant to be taken litrally, but a symbolic example of what I am trying to convey in regards to knowing truth through intelligence.Quote:
This is a far better mechanism than \"using your intelligence\" as you have not yet shown how that is any better than arbitrarily selecting passages.
If it is an intelligent belief. Than it is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you are ignorant in your belief, you are not using intelligence. This is fairly obvious to most people.Quote:
\"Using your intelligence\" is not a mechanism, because it is just the same as you selecting passages to interpret allegorically based on beliefs
Depends how intelligent you are.Quote:
- If passage A conflicts with my belief, then it obviously mustn't be a literal passage.
No you havn't. No-where can be found in your writing a reason why using intelligence fails to interpret the bible. You are saying you have explained it in order that you add strength to what you are saying. but it is hollow because you have nothing against what I am saying that makes sense.Quote:
I have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense.
You are repeating yourself. And this conversation is repeditive because you have failed to understand what I mean when I say intelligence. I reply not for your sake. But for the more advanced readers that may look back on this.Quote:
It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically.
What you said does not even make sense. Let alone result in consistent reliable answers every time. Here I am assuming you mean truthful asnwers. You can only get truthful reliable and consistent answers through the use of intelligence.Quote:
A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistant answers every time.
If you want me to explain a precise mechanism using intelligence, Ask a precise question and then you can recieve a precise mechanism about it. But before this, you must understand that intelligence is always used for any effective method. And that without intelligence you will get no-where.Quote:
So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:
Intelligence. Learn it.
What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.Quote:
Originally posted by in reply to awaken brady
Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being. And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.
There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.
Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.
Brady recently wrote to me pretending the ploy that the scientific community was entirely impartial in its attacks against religion... the only sensible thing to do, blah blah blah. But then he does not recognize his own insane stridency and venom as part and parcel of that same Community that he supposes to be inherently even and etherially wise. As though Bean Counters can't be as Vindictive as anybody else.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.
There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.
Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.
That was the original text.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>If you are going to quote me, do not alter my original text in any way without explaining the changes.Quote:
What is interesting here is you are all of a sudden calling awaken intelligent. Mentioning you sometimes enjoy his replies. And giving him a compliment, which is suprising enough, considering the usual, but there is a catch.....In order for awaken to recieve this compliment he should in effect not listen to what I have written. which you claim to be ignorant and not to be encouraged.
There is no mention of any reasons for why it is ignorance. It just is... If you disagree then humanity is in danger. This is like a reward punisment method and the motive for the post is just a lure away from what has been revealed.
Claiming 'humanity is in danger' if anyone listens to this, is dramatic and silly. The danger is not in what I have written at all. And no reason has or can be stated why it is dangerous. It is only percieved as a danger to people such as brady because they do not understand, or are not willing to, or/and are scared of what will be revealed.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-I
Although I do poke fun at you quite frequently, I actually find you to be a fairly intelligent human being (though a little narrowminded, but who am I to make that call?). Vocabulary is generally a decent gauge of intelligence however, so I assume you are at least of moderately capable intelligence.
And if you, for even one second, consider Nirvana's recent replies in this thread to spoon's posts to be 'substantial', I think humanity is in even greater danger than we've imagined. If you believe in God, that's one thing, I don't mind disagreeing with you (sometimes I quite enjoy it). But please don't encourage ignorance.
Furthermore, the compliment was not conditional. Awaken obviously has a decent grasp of the English language, our disagreement of certain subjects does not change that fact. My wish for him not to view your responses as 'substantial' was a plea, not a qualifier.
I know the plea went with the compliment. Just read what I wrote and you should understand what my point is. I did not include all of what you wrote, I deleted some of it. (this is petty) But changed none of the words or it's order, and did not quote out of context. The reason I deleted some was to save a little bit of space, sorry if it disturbed you. I didn't think it needed to be explained.
I don't see this as a big deal anyway. My point is still clear.
Thank you for your apology.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
sorry if it disturbed you.
lol
Nirvana.
You've stated in this thread that there is "only one true interpretation" of the bible, with the implication of course being that your interpretation is the the correct one. This originally came about because you choose to interpret passages about an everlasting hell allegorically, while ITM pointed out that they seem to be meant to be taken literally. When I asked you to supply a mechanism by which you can determine the allegorical/literal nature of a particular passage you came up with "using your intelligence". The mechanism by which you think the "one true interpretation" of the bible can be understood is merely using one's intelligence. Now, I've stepped through why it's clear to me that this is not a viable mechanism for interpreting anything - but you don't seem to grasp it so I'll explain it more precisely.
A mechanism for gaining the "one true interpretation" of the bible cannot be something as subjective as intelligence. When you get right down to it "using your intelligence" is just as arbitrary as "if it doesn't agree with my faith, interpret it differently". There is no logical or objective basis here. It is merely "I think this is true, therefore it is true". A good example of a viable mechanism for interpreting the gospels would be the one I already gave you:
To which you reply:Quote:
Originally posted by I
When jesus was clearly speaking in a parable(parabolic? ) or allegorical sense then you can interpret it allegorically, for all other parts it must be taken literally. This is logical, it makes use of \"intelligence\"
The reason that this is a viable mechanism is that it completely avoids the individual's subjective beliefs. An atheist, a christian and a satanist can all apply this mechanism and come up with consistent results.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
Just because jesus spoke in parables, does not mean that nothing else in the book is in symbolic form. Please explain what you are talking about here if I have misunderstood.
I don't see how it is logical to assume this, let alone using intelligence.
It is logical because it completely avoids any sort of ambiguous special exceptions. Either something is stated allegorically, or it is literal. If you want to say that a passage (which is portrayed in a literal sense) should be taken allegorically you would need to supply further mechanisms. A good example of another mechanism would be to compare phrases in the original greek form. If something is often referred to in an allegorical sense and the same phrase occurs in a literal passage, you could argue that the allegorical context outweighs the literal. Another good example would be identifying similies or metaphors used in texts written in that language around that time.
I'm not saying this is the correct method of biblical interpretation, I am just using this as an example of a viable mechanism.
There is easy evidence (which you inadvertently supplied a few posts ago, and I pointed out) that \"Using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism - and that is the fact that intelligent people all come up with different answers. To this you answer that:
This is a logical fallacy, something like the \"no true scotsman\" fallacy. (look it up)Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.
Claim: Using your intelligence will tell you everlasting hell is meant to be allegorical
Response: But here's a bunch of intelligent people who think it should be taken literally
Counter-Claim: Ahh, but no-one with true intelligence thinks it is literal
This just highlights the subjective and arbitrary nature of \"using your intelligence\" as a mechanism in this case. So to end on a high note. The following really sums up why \"using your intelligence\" is not a viable mechanism:
In other words, you already \"know\" the answer - so you pick and choose evidence or just flat out arbitrarily decide to interpret a passage allegorically. There is no reasoning behind \"using your intelligence\", it is merely interpreting a passage a particular way because, gosh darn it, it'd invalidate your belief any other way.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
Intelligence is knowing where the target is and being able to hit it.
I'm not saying you can't use intelligence, I'm just saying that there has to be some sort of mechanism behind the intelligence. The mechanism behind your interpretation seems just to be \"passage x invalidates my belief, so passage x is obviously allegorical.
Since the end of my last post seems to sum up this one as well:
Please answer the questions. If you still feel that "using your intelligence" is a viable mechanism, please supply some sort of reasoning why.Quote:
Originally posted by I
have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistent answers every time. So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be \"it aligns with my belief\".
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
-spoon
I never said I was perfect in my understanding about the bible. Instead of being argumentative. You should take the oppportunity to attempt to learn from me by asking questions. Even if you are skeptical, this approach never hurts. I say this knowing not only there is only 1 true meaning [from a number of diverse perspectives however] but knowing I am closer to understanding and seeing that meaning than you are.
If someone is not using intelligence it should be able to be explained why they are not. And it therefore becomes evident. There is no fallacy here, just common sense.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-nirvana starseed
This is a logical fallacy, something like the \"no true scotsman\" fallacy. (look it up)[/b]Quote:
Using your intelligence can never fail. If something fails. It is because of your lack of some sort of intelligence needed.
If you want an explaination for why this is using your intelligence. This will confirm the claim. To do this I would have to type an entire essay on \"Hell\" just for you.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
Claim: Using your intelligence will tell you everlasting hell is meant to be allegorical
That is not a counter claim. That is a statement telling someone they are not using their intelligence. If one wants an explaination why it is not intelligent. Then they should be able to explain why. That is the counter claim.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>The real test is to take a look at their beliefs and if you find illogic there [like in this example] Thus illogic equals lack of intelligence. Then you can conclude they are not using intelligence. What is logic is not subjective, and what is intelligent is also not subjective. But a persons judgement about both these things can be inaccurate. This does not mean it is never accurate. It just means it can be if the person is not using their brain.Quote:
Response: But here's a bunch of intelligent people who think it should be taken literally[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Spoon
Counter-Claim: Ahh, but no-one with true intelligence thinks it is literal
My answer to your questions is to use intelligence.
If you wish to proceed in more detail. You need to understand this answer.
Question for Nirvana:
The "one true interpretation" of the Bible would be perfectly in line with all Christian beliefs right? It would explain every positive claim, and destroy every negative criticism?
I am not sure what you mean when you say all christian beliefs. To answer this I need you to elaborate on that. Positive claims, and negative criticism will not effect what is true about it.Quote:
Originally posted by brady
The \"one true interpretation\" of the Bible would be perfectly in line with all Christian beliefs right? It would explain every positive claim, and destroy every negative criticism?
I really don't know why I bother; you respond to the parts of my post which matter least, and you seem to ignore my reasoning each time. I have stepped out. several times now why I believe "using your intelligence" is not a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation. I've even given you examples of mechanisms I would call viable, and the reasoning behind that.
Did you perhaps read the part of my last post where I re-posted direct questions which so far you have failed to answer? I've been asking questions this whole time, you've been avoiding them.Quote:
I never said I was perfect in my understanding about the bible. Instead of being argumentative. You should take the oppportunity to attempt to learn from me by asking questions. Even if you are skeptical, this approach never hurts. [/b]
\"Please answer the questions. If you still feel that \"using your intelligence\" is a viable mechanism, please supply some sort of reasoning why. \"
You think there is only 1 true meaning, and you think that you are closer to understanding it than me. Just because you think something (\"using your intelligence\") doesn't make it true.Quote:
I say this knowing not only there is only 1 true meaning [from a number of diverse perspectives however] but knowing I am closer to understanding and seeing that meaning than you are. [/b]
(People who think hell should be taken literally)
There has been no bad logic used here. You stated that hell was allegorical, ITM stated it was literal. Both of you are simply using your "mechanism". This highlights your mechanisms shortcomings. How are the two interpretations, under your "mechanism", any different?Quote:
The real test is to take a look at their beliefs and if you find illogic there [like in this example] Thus illogic equals lack of intelligence. Then you can conclude they are not using intelligence. [/b]
-spoon
First of all your assumption involving hell is way to much jumping to conclusion. Not all people who believe in god also believe in the hell part. Your question is like to much focusing on one particular belief system of god. So I guess it is only good for those who believe in hell.
But answer to your question
Yes!!
Ok
IDEAL SITUATION
Complete Bliss, Forever, no contradictions, no problems, no boredom, and absolutely no DUALISM!! Just complete and constant bliss, infintely, a never ending orgasm of bliss.
THIS, unfortunately cannot happen, because God is not omnipotent, and cannot just defy the nature of experience (dualism).
So he is omnibenevolent in the process that he has created. The process of creating ourselves.
I keep having to state that god is not omnipotent, but I don't really look at it that way. But yes, I guess he cannot create the perfect ideal. But know that there is perfection in the process.
Intelligence is that which is used to find out what is true, atleast of how I am thinking of it.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Quote:
you seem to ignore my reasoning each time.[/b]
Bascially you have told me that one cannot use intelligence to find out what is true.
I have told you that yes the term intelligence, used in this particular context, is the only method to find what's true.
You have then mentioned it is subjective and that no-one can know what intelligence is.
I have told you that intelligence is not subjective, and either is illogic.
1+1=2. This is not subjective logic anymore than intelligence or illogic is.
Each time you claim this you must explain what I have failed to answer and why. Not just simply say this without explaination.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Everything that you have written I have done my best to explain the core aspects of what you are saying. If I have missed something mention it in your next post so I can take a look at it.Quote:
I've even given you examples of mechanisms I would call viable, and the reasoning behind that.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-spoon@
I re-posted direct questions which so far you have failed to answer? I've been asking questions this whole time, you've been avoiding them.
<!--QuoteBegin-spoon
\"Please answer the questions. If you still feel that \"using your intelligence\" is a viable mechanism, please supply some sort of reasoning why.
A simple example of intelligence involving interpretation of a saying that is not meant to be taken litrally.
There is 2 ways you could interpret this saying. I am using this example because you keep asking how it is possible to interpret the bible using your intelligence. Since you are talking about knowing how to interpret either litrally or in a symbolic way here is the example:
A picture is worth a thousand words
1) This picture must be traded for 1 thousand words on a piece of paper about it exactly because that is it's value according to this saying. (taking it litrally)
2) A picture can sum up what is said in many words.
Now how do we use our intelligence to tell us what is true about this saying? How do we know how to interpret it litrally or not?
Lets use our intelligence......
1) There is not much point in trading a picture for 1000 words about it. And this is rarely done. Mainly because it is an odd and pointless thing to do
2) Pictures in art gallerys however can tell us alot just from looking at the imagery. And they can convey meaning to us, and not only meaning but emotion. Such communication through this imagery would take alot of writing to do it justice.
Conclusion: Using our intuitive intelligence and understanding we can know the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" is not meant to be taken litrally.
Do this when interpreting the bible and you are heading in the right direction to understanding the meaning of what is written. But you also must take into consideration mistranslations and other things which can distort the perception. Which takes discernment and a strong intuition to master. To really understand it properly takes effort.
There is no simple magical mechanism that you can use to interpret anything. You must use your brain and your knowledge and also your intuitive understanding to connect with what is true.
The first question would be the one I'm looking for you to answer.Quote:
Originally posted by i
have shown in this post (and in previous posts) how intelligence as mechanism fails completely in this sense. It is no better than arbitrarily selecting passages at whim to interpret allegorically. A decent mechanism would be one like my example: that anyone can apply and gives reliable, consistent answers every time. So again, either show me how \"using you intelligence\" can possibly be a viable mechanism for biblical interpretation, or answer the original questions again:
1. How do you determine which passages are literal and which are allegorical? Remember that there has to be some sort of mechanism here, it cant just be \"it aligns with my belief\".
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
-spoon
Put it this way. Any mechanism involved, has to use intelligence, or it won't work. That is the main idea. Stop being argumentative and silly. And be precise about what I have missed exactly, not just say everything.....that is vague and useless.
Using intelligence is a generalized method for all mechanisms involved.
Your job if you want a more precise answer or mechanism is to ask a precise question. Not a vague one such as how do you find what's true, or you'll get a vague answer such as "using intelligence"......this is the only correct answer possible form your vague questions.
Have you seen hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? They asked the quesion what is the purpose of life the universe and everything, and the computer told them 42. Serves them right for asking such a unprecise question.
So once again. The way you interpret the bible involves using intelligence. Want a more precise answer? Ask a more precise question.
Your orignal answer was "use your common sense and intelligence", since we've dealt with why this does not apply could you answer the (not vague at all) question?Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana
The problem with taking parts of the bible literally and at the same time interpreting other parts is that: there is no viable mechanism for determining which parts are literal and which allegorical. You can really see that something is wrong when different denominations interpret a passage completely differently, while others are taking it entirely literally. There is no mechanism used to determine which passages are meant to be allegorical save for the useless \"it would go against my faith literally, so it must be allegorical\". For example if we're interpreting things without cause this would be completely viable:Quote:
In the moment you just have to realize your interpretation of it perhaps needs a bit of work, and that many people do interpret it yeah ofcourse as do you, And many people make mistakes. There is only one true interpretation, just because it is not said to be litral does not mean people are being relative about the way they interpret. If you think the sentences above are meant to be in a litral context, you are indeed far away from understanding.
Jesus was crucified as the synoptic gospels tell us. Yet he was only up there for 6 hours (again, as the gospels say) - this was a very short time to be nailed up on a cross. This obviously is meant to be interpreted that jesus was let down after six hours because they felt sorry for him. All other interpretations (including the rest of the gospels, an apparent contradiction) are either based on a faulty interpretation of the above fact or are a later interpolation into the text. Jesus did not die for anyone's sins.
---- this would be the important part-----
If you say that there is \"one true interpretation\", then you would have to provide a mechanism for determining which passages are allegorical or literal. Why, for example, should we take the views of hell as allegorical - but the crucifiction as literal? Whats to stop me from interpreting it all as a fairy tale? Or a group of roman plays that were mistaken as truth and promoted as religion? Lacking a mechanism, interpreting any passage (or the whole book) [as allegorical] is just as viable as your selected passages.
----------------------------------
In addition to that, you would have to establish why your particular interpretation is the true one - why not any other?[/b]
-spoon
Nirvana, have you ever considered a career in dodgeball?
Contrary to carnal knowledge, intellect is not a sound form of interpretation of the scriptures. The author of the Word structured it so, to keep the natural mind from contaminating the Word with carnal interpretations of spiritual things, which pertain to God’s nature. As a result of man-made interpretations, (which have no effect, upon the sons of God) the Word of God has been compromised, and deluded by the understanding of those whom have no ability to correctly interpret it (by the spirit,) which brings the church under the influence of denominationalism, (the picking, and choosing of select parts of the scriptures to form their own belief system i.e. (demon-nations) this as caused the church to become splintered in its ability to carry out its commission.Quote:
Originally posted by InTheMoment
Nirvana, have you ever considered a career in dodgeball?
To rightly dividing the Word of truth, therefore to suggest that it takes intellect, or common sense to comprehend the Word is not the truth, by any means. If God required the intellectual to interpret the Word, then He would have revealed the truth to the intellectual leaders of the day i.e. the Scribes, and Pharisees, but He did not, He revealed Himself to the unlearned, and the common, and even the uncomely. The religious leaders touted (‘For He eats, and drinks with sinners’) assuming that He has some how disqualified himself from being the true Messiah because He did not associate with the religious.
The very peoples who assumed that they process full and complete knowledge of the scriptures were the very peoples whom Jesus scoffed for their lack of discernment, and compassion. Just as the atheistic scientific community has done today, it sets itself as the authority over all things intellectual, which includes the non-existence of God. Unfortunately they too shall be as the Scribes and Pharisees where in that day ‘scoffed’ by the Lord Most High! Until, there is a reveling of the Lord to the World as a whole.
The Rev.
Spoon it is very vague, just take a look at it
Now which passage? Do you know how many passages there are in the bible? This question is not precise by any stretch of the imagination. Also you have asked \"how do we know what the true interpretation is\" eg question number 2)Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
you would have to provide a mechanism for determining which passages are allegorical or literal.
This is a very vague question to ask.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?
You interpret the meaning of different passages with different considerations. The only thing I can say about a method used to interpret all passages in 'intelligence'. You have to take a look at each passage as a seperate issue, to explain and discuss how we tell if this particular passage is literal.
If you want to get to know how you interpret it. Ask a question about a particular passage. So we can start having a look at the process in which one understands how it is either literal or allegorical.
If you are not able to understand that your question is vague then I cannot help you.
I never missed a post. You have never understood what I am saying the entire time. So in effect I could just as well say you have missed everything that I wrote.
What I write has not been difficult to understand, it has been very simple. Take a look at passages in the bible. Use your intelligence to understand them. Now if we want to get more precise we should look at a particular passage as an example, since every passage is different, we will consider different things about the passage each time.
The conclusion is different for each passage, as well as the reasoning depending on the issue involved. The resulting conclusions are made in a variety of ways to get to what is true about it. There is no magic precise method that you can precisely apply to all passages that will result in the right conclusion every time. This is like wanting a precise method to make chocolate cake. But saying it also has to result in ice cream if i want ice cream. So how can I make ice cream and use the same process to make chocolate cake too?
You can't, ask what you want, ice cream or chocolate cake. (which passage) Then you can get a precise method for both. In the same way. If you told me what passages you are talking about. Then we can discuss how we interpret them.
I don't think this is difficult to understand what I'm saying. It's quite simple.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So let me get this straight...the only 'proof' of your belief lies in a piece of text you have to believe to interpret properly?!?! Talk about alienating outsiders...
Forgive me for saying so. But that's utterly and completely moronic.
Please refer to my post on page 2 of the "Scientific Facts of the Bible" thread that you continue to ignore.Quote:
Originally posted by The Rev+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Rev)</div>In other words, if Christianity had been introduced to smart people it wouldn't have taken off in quite the same way. That's something to be proud of.Quote:
If God required the intellectual to interpret the Word, then He would have revealed the truth to the intellectual leaders of the day i.e. the Scribes, and Pharisees, but He did not, He revealed Himself to the unlearned, and the common, and even the uncomely.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-The Rev
Just as the atheistic scientific community has done today, it sets itself as the authority over all things intellectual, which includes the non-existence of God.
Brady, if you want proof of anything it's going to require some belief. There is no such thing as objective evidence. There is a way to know whats true without objective outside evidence.Quote:
Originally posted by brady
the only 'proof' of your belief lies in a piece of text you have to believe to interpret properly?
All your beliefs are based on what you consider outside objective evidence, but this does not really exists. You think it does. You are merely using the same process as anyone to belief anything.
If I told you (trying something simple here) That I interpret "I smashed the window" as litral. Mainly because I see glass on the floor and I saw him smash it. You could go on about how maybe he was being symbolic and not litral as there is no real evidence ,and I am just believing what i want to believe. In the end it's the same with you aswell brady. But who do you think it more grounded in reality. One who takes all things into consideration and makes a decent attempt to understand to the best of ones ability. Or who who merely says. You don't know what your talking about and that it is not certain, and I can prove it is not certain.
To say that means nothing. You have to explain to me why your interpretation should hold any more weight than mine, if your going to speak out against it.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Did you read the part where Awaken said that God intentionally revealed the 'truth' to stupid people so that it wouldn't get corrupted by intellect?Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Brady, if you want proof of anything it's going to require some belief. There is no such thing as objective evidence. There is a way to know whats true without objective outside evidence.
All your beliefs are based on what you consider outside objective evidence, but this does not really exists. You think it does. You are merely using the same process as anyone to belief anything.
If I told you (trying something simple here) That I interpret \"I smashed the window\" as litral. Mainly because I see glass on the floor and I saw him smash it. You could go on about how maybe he was being symbolic and not litral as there is no real evidence ,and I am just believing what i want to believe. In the end it's the same with you aswell brady. But who do you think it more grounded in reality. One who takes all things into consideration and makes a decent attempt to understand to the best of ones ability. Or who who merely says. You don't know what your talking about and that it is not certain, and I can prove it is not certain.
To say that means nothing. You have to explain to me why your interpretation should hold any more weight than mine, if your going to speak out against it.
I'm not talking about what Awaken wrote. Do you have this idea that I completely agree with everything he says? I don't. I was talking about what I quoted from you.
'Boy ain't that the truth'Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
In other words, if Christianity had been introduced to smart people it wouldn't have taken off in quite the same way. That's something to be proud of.
The reason Jesus had to come to the common man is because He already tried it with the so-called 'smart people' which were to busy waving their credentials around under the common man's nose...I'll say it did starting out different, it had to be abolished, and a new covenant had to come in its place...
Well, the part you quoted from me was a direct response to Awaken's post, you can't take one without the other. I was analyzing and summing up what HE said.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
I'm not talking about what Awaken wrote. Do you have this idea that I completely agree with everything he says? I don't. I was talking about what I quoted from you.
yeah I know,
but I still wanted to explain that quote, so I did.
That's one possibility. Can't you see that Christianity has its foundations in gullibiliity, ignorance and wishful thinking? It was the lowest of the intellectual low trying to figure out why the world operated the way it did and thinking up something to look forward to.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
'Boy ain't that the truth'
The reason Jesus had to come to the common man is because He already tried it with the so-called 'smart people' which were to busy waving their credentials around under the common man's nose...I'll say it did starting out different, it had to be abolished, and a new covenant had to come in its place...
Living in filth and disease isn't so bad if you have eternal bliss to look forward to. Then Constantine "converted to Christianity on his death bed" and a millenia and a half later, bang here we are.
What you call gullibility ‘we call faith,’ what you call ignorance, ‘we call trust,’ what you call wishful thinking, ‘we call belief in the unseen.’Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
That's one possibility. Can't you see that Christianity has its foundations in gullibiliity, ignorance and wishful thinking? It was the lowest of the intellectual low trying to figure out why the world operated the way it did and thinking up something to look forward to.
I am very sorry that you can let down your intellectual defenses long enough to see beyond your senses.
The Rev.
And I'm very sorry that you're a gullible, ignorant, wishful thinker.Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken4e1
What you call gullibility ‘we call faith,’ what you call ignorance, ‘we call trust,’ what you call wishful thinking, ‘we call belief in the unseen.’
I am very sorry that you can let down your intellectual defenses long enough to see beyond your senses.
The Rev.
Due to evidence of mainstream science. It is commonly believed that unless you give me $20,000, you are not being logical, do not understand science, and lack intelligence.
Brady I can take credit card, check, or money order.
Unfortunately interpreting by the spirit seems to have just as much success as \"using your intelligence\". Didn't you already bring this up in this thread? There are lots of different interpretations all done by people \"with the spirit\" (different christian denominations). It seems god didn't even want believers to get the right idea :roll:Quote:
Originally posted by Awaken
As a result of man-made interpretations, (which have no effect, upon the sons of God) the Word of God has been compromised, and deluded by the understanding of those whom have no ability to correctly interpret it (by the spirit,)
This is not vague, it is what's required for you to say there is \"one true interpretation\" of the bible. If you do not have a mechanism then you are relying on people's opinions to determine what is literal/allegorical. The problem with that is that there is nothing to differentiate between a right and a wrong opinion. If there is no mechanism, it is just as correct for someone to say \"hell is allegorical\" as \"hell is literal\". It is even as correct for the passion narrative to be allegorical or literal.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>The next few quotes from you concern this.<!--QuoteBegin-NirvanaQuote:
you would have to provide a mechanism for determining which passages are allegorical or literal.[/b]
Spoon it is very vague, just take a look at it
Another problem with the lack of an objective mechanism is something called Confirmation bias. Basically it is a documented statistical bias where we (as humans) have a tendency to only search for evidence that confirms our beliefs. If there is no objective mechanism then the reality of confirmation bias states that you are likely to only find evidence to support your hypothesis. Or to bring it back into context - you will interpret passages as literal if they support your belief and if they don't, well, they must be allegorical!
I've pointed this out in several posts, and have provided reasoning each time. If you feel that you can somehow arrive at the \"one true interpretation\" of the bible without a mechanism - please provide some reasoning.
A mechanism does not need to know about specific passages. The whole point of a mechanism to determine if a passage is literal/allegorical is that you can objectively apply it to any given passage and come up with a reliable, unbiased answer. If you are concerning yourself with each individual passage then you are just inventing \"special rules\" for each one. This just comes down to your opinion, which as I've pointed out continuously does not help to arrive at the \"one true interpretation\" you seem to think exists.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
Now which passage? Do you know how many passages there are in the bible? This question is not precise by any stretch of the imagination
Again, no it is not. For \"the truth\" to be anything other than your subjective opinion you need to provide some sort of method of arriving at the true interpretation. Note I am not asking for a mechanism here, as something as complex as interpretation is outside the scope of any reasonable mechanism. A mechanism would only be useful in determining something as black and white as literal/allegorical.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>The next quotes concern this statement of mine<!--QuoteBegin-NirvanaQuote:
2. How does one make the right interpretation, as you say there is only one truth?[/b]
This is a very vague question to ask.
So basically, according to you, it does just come down to your opinion. If you are just \"using your intelligence\" then your interpretation of hell being allegorical is just as right as ITM's interpretation of it being literal. This is not a method for determining the \"one true interpretation\". It is just a method to assign the value \"true\" to your particular interpretation. Just because you redefine something does not make it true.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
What I write has not been difficult to understand, it has been very simple. Take a look at passages in the bible. Use your intelligence to understand them. Now if we want to get more precise we should look at a particular passage as an example, since every passage is different, we will consider different things about the passage each time.
If you want to state that there is something as objective as \"one true interpretation\" of the bible, then you'd better be prepared to offer something more objective than \"use your intelligence\" as a method at arriving at this interpretation. A method that might make sense, from within belief, is the one that awaken proposed - \"the holy spirit guide your interpretation\". Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, the holy spirit seems to guide people to different answers, so this method is invalidated.
I have responded, at length, to every one one of your points. I may ignore some things because they presuppose something that I've objected to (and provided reasoning against). You, on the other hand, have ignored the main part of my posts again and again. The post I was talking about (the one starting with one line: Nirvana.) you responded to one paragraph, which was about 1/6 of the post.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana
I never missed a post. You have never understood what I am saying the entire time. So in effect I could just as well say you have missed everything that I wrote.
You have missed posts, and I have understood and responded to all of your points so far.
Just before I finish I want to apologise to ITM and the others who I'm sure were having a very interesting discussion before I asked nirvana a question. I really didn't expect it to take this long, honest!
-spoon
ok spoon, think about this.
The reason I say there is only 1 interpretation is because there is only 1 truth in existence.
truth is not relative,and does not change, then change back again depending what you want to think. Neither can be the interpretation of the writing known as the bible.
How do you find whats true? Is there a method you use? Ofcourse there is. That is how you come to respond to my posts with what you are saying. You use logic and reasoning and your intelligence, just like everyone does to the best of their ability.
Could you explain to me a precise method to find truth? It is a ridiculously large subject is it not? The only thing I can say is a precise method is soul contact.
Unless you ask a precise question regarding an interpretation, I would not know where to start describing it, as it's such a hudge subject and process to be discussing that.
Everyone comes to conclusions based on their understanding. The level of understanding will determine the quality of the conclusion.
It's not, everyones conclusion has the same value.....Because some people are simply more correct and in tune with whats true than others. Some have more understanding and 'soul contact'. As there is different degrees and stages.
Now when you look at the bible, You have people with different levels of understanding/soul contact, looking at it. Different answers depend on the quality of understanding, the higher the understanding. The better quality the interpretation.
Surely its not that difficult to understand that intelligence comes in degrees, levels of understanding applied.
This is also very important to realize.
When one has made soul contact. That one will always agree with another with soul contact, because both are seeing whats true
You say that everyone has different opinions. That's why I mentioned that when one finds truth, both see as 1 vision.
The only precise method (generalized to your question) is to find the truth within yourself. (soul contact) You cannot look outside yourself for it and find it, that's impossible. However if you wish to discuss the reasoning for certain passages of the bible, then we can use our common sense to realize a few things about it. You are avoiding asking anything precise, because it will reveal the gaping whole in your argument.
Also you can say everything is subjective to ones mind. But this is useless and It does not achieve anything here stating this, when we are discussing how to find truth or interpret things.
The key flaw with this statement is your assumption that the Bible is a representation of truth.Quote:
The reason I say there is only 1 interpretation is because there is only 1 truth in existence.[/b]
Well it's not a representation of pure fiction. It is based on something. Well I'll be, think of that. There is something useful in such a famous book claimed as nonfiction afterall.
I've read quite a few of the posts here, but I can't find a point to really latch onto and comment on. I hope you'll excuse me if I share my views on "Omnibenevolent" as it pertains to God.
The quick answer is "Yes, God is omnibenevolent." How can this be while we are taught by the prophets in all scripture that there is a Heaven and a Hell? How can we reconcile these two apparently divergent opinions?
Firstly, it is my opinion that the "eternalness" of Heaven and Hell are due to their being in force for eternity, that they are indeed eternal principles. The Christians (as well as the Muslims) have been taught incorrectly that the eternity of Hell and Heaven has to do with a person being consigned there for all of Eternity. I beleive this to be false.
The Buddhists give a much better rendition of the concepts of Heaven and Hell, or rather positive feedback for choices a person makes, and negative feedback for incorrect choices. From this perspective, we see that Heaven is a state enjoyed by making correct choice and Hell is the result of making improper choice.
This is a simplification of Heaven and Hell, but I think its an instructive one.
Returning to the "omnibenevolent" question, the problem with human beings is that they do not see themselves as God sees us. God is interested not in our comfort but in our eternal progression. If suffering negative consequences will make us better (ie. help us progress) then he figures it "benevolent" to institute natural law to provide those negative consequences. To reward constructive choices, he provides positive consequences.
Unfortunately, this feedback (that is necessary for our Self's to learn) is seen as "Happy God" and "Angry God". It is always just God. He shows his omnibenevolence by setting up the Universe as he does to teach us, sometimes with the stick other times with the carot, not according to His whims, but according to "free will".
Free will is not a free ride. God is the Master of giving us enough rope to hang ourselves if we choose to do so. The good news is that Justice is in effect and even the most heinous crimes can eventually be worked out, karmically speaking. This is just logical. For God not to do this would make him a God I would rebel against as he would meet out infinite punishment for finite sin. This is not Justice.
I beleive that as World Religions grasp the oversimplicity of the Heaven/Hell concept that they can and will be brought into the age of reason, that either incorrect or oversimplified concepts of Heaven and Hell (or speaking Buddhically, painful or preasurable Karma) will be reconcilled by that which agrees with the reasonable mind.
Good post. Your going to put me to shame..........all I have done is argued a fair bit.
Nirvana,
I'm glad to see you, Brother. I am glad in my heart that I see you using Master Khul's advice of "use-demand-receive". You came here in initiation (of your own free will you came to this Kurukshetra, that is to say "battlefield", to stand or fall as the case may be) and "USED" your own energy to fight. Then you "DEMANDED" by coming to the Keyster board and asked for assistance. I am here to hopefully render assistance, so that you might "RECEIVE" that which you need to further your self-appointed task.
Since you called me here, you are Initiate and I am Disciple in this context. I will seek to assist you in giving your fellow posters answers to their question, or at least my opinions on the matter. I hope that mutual benifit is in store for all of us.
It is good to see you, sir.
I see that you have brought up the principle of Soul Contact. The posters bring up valid points against the acceptance of your opinions on this subject. I will say a few words on what I know of this, hopefully shedding additional light on the subject of Soul Contact.
Spoon said: If you want to state that there is something as objective as "one true interpretation" of the bible, then you'd better be prepared to offer something more objective than "use your intelligence" as a method at arriving at this interpretation. A method that might make sense, from within belief, is the one that awaken proposed - "the holy spirit guide your interpretation". Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, the holy spirit seems to guide people to different answers, so this method is invalidated.
This is a valid arguement, in my opinion. How is it that what Nirvana says about "absolute truth" and "soul contact" be true in opposition to the logic of Spoon?
Soul contact, which is the same thing as talked about in Christianity as "being led by the Spirit", is an interesting science.
Soul contact proper is the formation of a stream of communication between the concrete mind and the higher states of consciousness WITHIN the same person. The reason why soul contact works isn't because of the "bridge" (called the Antesthkarina, sorry about the spelling, my Hindu isn't that great :D ) itself but by access of the higher chakric functions. I'm just being technical here...using the term soul contact in your context, Nirvana, is entirely proper.
The lowest of the higher functions accessed by forming the bridge is acheivement of a Buddhic state, which is a conduit of spiritual information. It is theortically possible to move information from one being to another along this "plane". The fact that God Himself is also buddhically connected to everybody on the planet gives the highest form of intelligence available to all of us. I suppose that prayer works along this plane of the soul.
The difficulty that arises with buddhic communication is that the information along it is in a "principle"-based format, rather than a linear method of communication like email or telephone.
The discrepancy that Spoon sees in relying on "the Spirit" or "Soul Contact" is a symptom of this "limitation" that the information is principle-based. I disagree with your assertion, Nirvana that soul contact leads to a formation of an absolute opinion on a matter, as soul-contact provides the prinicples that must be "rendered" based on a given situation. Since we are all in different situations, the soul contact is identical, but how we choose to render it, or rather "concretize" it, or translate those impressions or intuitions is just as based on the concrete mind as it is on the spiritual information itself.
While it is true what you say, Nirvana, that part of the discrepancy is due to varying abilities to make soul contact, a lot of it has to do with the rendering process. For example, let's say that there are two parties. One of them is mentally convinced that a piece of land is theirs (the country of Israel comes to mind) and when they make soul contact, based upon their mind set, the soul contact will respond with "If it is yours, then the people who currently occupy it are theives and it is your right to demand from them that which they have stolen." This is a true principle.
The other party may see the other party coming to push them off their land, and through soul contact as well based on their self-questioning "How should I rightly respond to this situation?" soul contact will respond with "If another person is trying to hurt you, you have the right to defend youself." Another true principle. The principle of trusting soul contact is 100% in effect.
However, the physical plane realization of these two forms of soul contact results in a blood war. How is this possible, given both parties used soul contact? By the example I have given, you can see how the questions asked and the responses given by SC resulted in a difference of opinion.
Spoon is correct. Nirvana is correct. Christianity is correct. Hopefully I've managed to connect some of the dots here.
Nirvana said: Good post. Your going to put me to shame..........all I have done is argued a fair bit.
It is not my intention to run rough-shod over you, Brother. You are Initiate in the context of www.dreamviews.com and I am your Disciple, having responded to your CALLING on the Keysters. I consider myself a passable disciple; I am here to serve.
The best way to learn to be a good Initiate is to have a powerful Disciple. Its rough on the personality, as you have just said, but you will learn quickly and this is good.
I have read quite a few of your posts, and from what have read so far, you are speaking Truth. Where you have been attacked is only on those points that have not been more fully elaborated upon. My point is that I can assist by filling in some of the gaps in your logic, gaps that others have capitalized upon.
It is your responsability to lead the assault, an attack not on people, but on Ignorance (or as the Hindu's say Avidya). I have your back.
I will disagree when you say something that is contrary to my opinion, but accept my apologies in advance. Based on what you have been saying, I see that all I will need to do is clarify and perhaps add some logical points of my own. If your purpose here is increased light, then I think you will be pleased with my input. Together we will stand or fall.
I have seen some places where I would like to post, but I would like to play only the role of Dean's Disciple in this venue. Where you attack, I will follow and assist. That is to say, I will scan these subboard within this board for your messages and attempt to cooperate with you in supporting the truths you present. I will try to limit my support only to those questions and teachings you present.
You know that I like to play fool on Keysters. I do this because I consider that my "home base" and in the training area, its fun to joke around, have Ruth make fun of me, etc. etc. We'll post to the Keysters occationally how we are "Busting a few Faithbuster heads" I'm sure and have a few brewskis, but here its business. And when it comes to business, especially what we feel is God's business, I try to be the consumate professional (with a few jokes thrown in so it doesn't get stale, of course).
I hope that I can say a few things that will help you in your search for knowledge, but time will tell. The goal here is not to advance personality agendas but to be a "light-bringer".
Keep going as you are, Initiate. I feel you are doing well. I have your back. Go forward and I will follow and struggle with you. And keep scrapping, its pretty funny and I love a good laugh!
If we get in a fix, you'll call to the Keysters and even if JJ himself has to come out (hopefully he will Disciple under you, if he does) we'll get these issues presented in a way that is conducive to teaching truth, and learning a bit too (there are some facinatingly smart people here I've found).
Feel free to contact me outside of these forums if you want me to do something, even if it is that you find my presence with you not to your liking. I will disengage if it is your wish.
You guys still haven't asked the real question.
Which is whether or not God is "Omniomni."
X9, God is not omniomni. The All is the only thing that is omniomni. Read some books on hermetism. Makes you smarter.
I did. And it only did marginally so.Quote:
Originally posted by ptahsokar
X9, God is not omniomni. The All is the only thing that is omniomni. Read some books on hermetism. Makes you smarter.
Read books on something else. Anything else. That always makes you smarter.
I am glad.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
Read books on something else. Anything else. That always makes you smarter.
However, I once read a book that had a guy like Fabio with his shirt off on the cover (it was wedged between the arm and the seat cushion of my Mom's Lazy Boy) and just a few paragraphs of it almost made me fail the grade I was currently in. It just drained me.
It looks like there are exceptions to every rule, but I do agree with your assertion that reading makes one smarter.
You think failing grades is a marker for unintelligence?
Let me share with you something that I have observed, X9, my boy. (And yes, I said m'boy to get you goat. Not only am I a goat but I enjoy the getting of them as well.)Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
You think failing grades is a marker for unintelligence?
Failing of grades is indicative of one of two things, either low intelligence or high intelligence. So yes I agree with both the letter and spirit of you question.
Have you also noticed how parents are rather dismayed when they have a child of remarkably low intelligence? Strangely, few parents are overjoyed when they have a child of remarkably high intelligence. In fact, if parents were entirely honest with themselves, they would definately choose having an idiot for a son or daughter rather than a genius. Its true that parents want a legacy of an accomplished child, but only to a certain point.
This line of reasoning makes me think of Lucifer.
Funny how the Advesary the tricker of Adam and Eve is held with such great contempt by mankind. The mysteries teach that Adam and Eve was the temporary splitting of the androgenous God of this World. Lucifer is a pretty smart cookie for tricking a God (even an amnesiac, seperated, humanized God).
And yet every time someone comes along with a brilliant new idea, a quantum leap forward in perspective, humanity always shouts "You're of the Devil." Strangely, this is entirely true, the "Devil" being an Angel of Light, or rather the "Light-Bringer", PHOSPHEROS.
My point here, X9? Don't be too smart...you'll get stoned for it...or at least fail a few grades. Light will warm you but too much of it burns and too brightly anhihilates.
And another thing, X9. Beware people who try to kiss your ass. The kissing of asses is always for the purpose of getting you to do what they want you to do.
BTW, I like the close correlation between you style of humor and your Avatar Icon. The picture adds a little more umpha to your deceptively deadpan humor.
Somebody should warn Nirvana.Quote:
Originally posted by ptahsokar
And another thing, X9. Beware people who try to kiss your ass. The kissing of asses is always for the purpose of getting you to do what they want you to do.
Ah. Yer a quick one, R.Carter.Quote:
Originally posted by R.Carter
Somebody should warn Nirvana.
BTW, I like your Icon as well rather the catch phrase on it. The picture is a good rendition of the face my ass makes about a day and a half after eating habenaros.
You should smell my breath. You could draw the same parallel. :loveyou:Quote:
Originally posted by ptahsokar
BTW, I like your Icon as well rather the catch phrase on it. The picture is a good rendition of the face my ass makes about a day and a half after eating habenaros.
The singular timeliness of this is inversely related to its singular wisdom, Sokar (minus the mythos, of course). I just took the last exam of my last class of my last year of schooling ever, yesterday.Quote:
Originally posted by ptahsokar
My point here, X9? Don't be too smart...you'll get stoned for it...or at least fail a few grades. Light will warm you but too much of it burns and too brightly anhihilates.
It would have been nice to have realized this when I was younger. You know. Before I failed all those classes.
Here's hoping I don't fail the ones I just tried! :)
Congrats!Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
I just took the last exam of my last class of my last year of schooling ever, yesterday.
If you feel this is of your concern, it is your mission. Here is my instructions to carry out this great warning.Quote:
Originally posted by R.Carter
Somebody should warn Nirvana.
Let him not take with him his wallet, or his bags, nor cell phone or house keys. He should not worry about these things. But instead go to the top of the great mountain on the west. And he shall see an orange tree. He should then get a orange off the tree, the best one he can find, and if time permits the pine-apple situated to the far right of the orange tree. And throw these down the mountain.
Then he must go quickly to the mountain on the other side. And he will then see me. Warn me about this.....a quick warning not a slow one. For my time is not unlimited. If I think he is worthy, I will then reveal from my jacket, which will be black, (it it is raining it will be a leather one) A mysterious green bottle with a message in it. That will thank him greatly for his concern, and also contain a few photos of him throwing the fruit down the mountain.
This shall be known as the great warning of R.Carter, for he is the choosen one. (he suggested it)
LOL. You're a kook, man.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
If you feel this is of your concern, it is your mission. Here is my instructions to carry out this great warning.
Let him not take with him his wallet, or his bags, nor cell phone or house keys. He should not worry about these things. But instead go to the top of the great mountain on the west. And he shall see an orange tree. He should then get a orange off the tree, the best one he can find, and if time permits the pine-apple situated to the far right of the orange tree. And throw these down the mountain.
Then he must go quickly to the mountain on the other side. And he will then see me. Warn me about this.....a quick warning not a slow one. For my time is not unlimited. If I think he is worthy, I will then reveal from my jacket, which will be black, (it it is raining it will be a leather one) A mysterious green bottle with a message in it. That will thank him greatly for his concern, and also contain a few photos of him throwing the fruit down the mountain.
This shall be known as the great warning of R.Carter, for he is the choosen one. (he suggested it)
ROGLMAO!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
This shall be known as the great warning of R.Carter, for he is the choosen one. (he suggested it)
I have NO idea what Nirvana just said, but I think its one of the most hillarious things I've ever read.
Looks like the Son of Kurt has been eating his wheaties.
Ah, X9 you find the plight of the Athiest in your observation, that he always finds the best advice too late. Don't worry, m'boy, I'm sure you had fun in the process.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
It would have been nice to have realized this when I was younger. You know. Before I failed all those classes. Here's hoping I don't fail the ones I just tried! :)
And, yeah, congrats on your exam, my friend. congrats.
And about the mythos: Ptah-Sokar is a name that hasn't been figured out by egyptologists yet. It means "Grand Architect of Earth" Ptah="Grand Architect" and Sokar = "of the Earth". It is identical to the placeholder GAOTU as said by the FreeMasons.
Occultly, the purposes of God are carried out through the assumption, fulfillment and finally termination of Names. The use of Names is analogous to how the nerves and hormones in our body transmit commands from the presiding intelligence (you) to the lesser intelligences (your cells, muscles, etc. etc.) Names are constructed by God (the presiding intelligence of the Earth scheme) and then distributed to lesser lives (mankind especially) in the same way.
The assumption of these Names, or in other words figuring out what they mean and if you are fit to assume them, or in other words, that you can actually do what they mean, is a science.
The fulfillment of them is based on conforming your little Will to the Will-of-God, expressed in the Name, which is a task with a beginning, a middle and an end, which the assumer of the name takes karmic responsibility to carry out.
The termination of the Name, is based on the fulfilling of the task that the Name describes. Many people have assumed Names (having used their intelligence to figure them out) but due to their inability to fulfill them, the Name still exists.
For example, many antecident to Christ assumed the Name Christ (or "Messiah"), but it was only Jesus of Nazareth that fulfilled the Name. When the task is fulfilled, the name disappears.
People wonder why Jesus Christ had so many names, like Alpha and Omega, Son of Man, Light of the World, Christ, The Savior, Son of God, etc. etc. Each of these Names corresponds to a specific task. Many of the Names he used have been tied to events in scripture, however many have not (so far).
Speaking about names, Ptah-Sokar is a very, very neutral Name. I'm thinking of exchanging it here soon (to particiapte in an experiment Nirvana and I working on) to Typhon-Set, perhaps the most radient name of all, it being identical to Lucifer, the Angel of Light. We'll see how that goes though. I'll retain the same icon though, the female Yantra of Trimegistus so it'll be easy to recognize my posts.
Thank you for your congratulations everyone. I'm just happy to be free. :)
And the theists never find it.Quote:
Originally posted by ptahsokar
[h, X9 you find the plight of the Athiest in your observation, that he always finds the best advice too late.
Really, that's good advice, but not the "best." I probably wouldn't have followed it before anyways. "Hey, kid don't be so smart," like I had heard it a million times, only made me want to be a million times smarter.
Good thing. I could have deluded myself into thinking I was doing magic.
The "presiding intelligence over the Earth-scheme" is whatever the most powerful intelligence on Earth is. Humanity. And the power of humanity's intelligence grows over time, by virtue of the fact that our intelligence can transcend the death of individuals, and be passed down through books, word of mouth, and other increasingly ingenious media. Your backwards search through the most primitively remarkable societies for their idea of intelligence means you are actually taking advantage of this transcended intelligence, but not acknowledging its existent primacy.
You do magick too, m'boy. Everybody does it. When you move your arm, or twist a door knob, or make a cellphone call, you're doing magick.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex Nine
Good thing. I could have deluded myself into thinking I was doing magic.
My big beef with people is they don't see the magick in the stuff that they do. If you told a man back in the 1800's that people would be flying around in the bellies of big mechanical birds to distant lands, he'd call you crazy and say that the magick to do this was far beyond any man.
Where people see the mundain and common, I choose instead to practice the enthusiastic art of seeing the magick in everything. It really opens your view to a whole new world, in my opinion.
Magick is science that you don't understand. According to the definition used here.
We could also use the term "Magic" as something that is not possible. eg, illogical.
In this way alot of people believe in magic.
Alot of people could call alot of stuff magick in the proper context and in clarity. Instead they think they know how it works already. This illusion of knowledge makes them delusional. Where as seeing "magick" in clarity involves aknowledging what you don't understand yet, and discerning that which you do and do not know. And so seeing and apreciating the mysteries in life.
One of the greatest miracle-working Saints in History, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, was a great advocate for the retention of 'Mystery', as against the rising insistence of his Time toward rationalizing everything. Then, they wished to Rationalize the Faith, so they thought they were only doing it a favor, but Saint Bernard wisely discerned that ultimately the Mind was not going to do the Spirit much good in the long run. The Mind reaches Atheism and then finds it difficult to go much beyond that.Quote:
Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Magick is science that you don't understand. According to the definition used here.
We could also use the term \"Magic\" as something that is not possible. eg, illogical.
In this way alot of people believe in magic.
Alot of people could call alot of stuff magick in the proper context and in clarity. Instead they think they know how it works already. This illusion of knowledge makes them delusional. Where as seeing \"magick\" in clarity involves aknowledging what you don't understand yet, and discerning that which you do and do not know. And so seeing and apreciating the mysteries in life.
Indeed, in regards to these sophistic definitions of Magic it is as though the Mind is once again not rising much beyond its element. We are lead to suppose that Magic would no longer be magic once we understood it. Such a notion quite misses the point. For instance, Saint Francis of Paola, when told by his Bishop to refrain from all but the most necessary Miracles, was a bit confused concerning the status of the situation when he saw a workman fall from a steeple repair, and decided to suspend the man in the middle of his fall, some 40 feet above the level of the street, until he could go to the Bishop and have the circumstances clarified. We had the instant suspension of gravity in the 16th Century in Southern Italy. Now, tell me, what exactly here can be explained in order to take the Magic out of the Magic, or to replace the Mystery with the perfectly reasonable?